PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that Denbighshire County Council failed to issue a response to his complaint, which he made in September 2025, regarding refuse collection. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to issue a complaint response. She said this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr C. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise and provide an explanation to Mr C for the delay, as well as issue the complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr X complained about the communal heating supply and that Denbighshire Council had undertaken recent works which resulted in additional charges. The Ombudsman found that while the Council had provided a Freedom of Information response to Mr X, it had overlooked providing him with a formal complaint response. She said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 3 weeks, apologise and explain the oversight in not providing a complaint response, and to issue a Stage 2 complaint response.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Denbighshire County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”).  It was alleged that the Member made discriminatory comments about Gypsy, Roma, Traveller communities at a Council training session.  In addition, it was alleged that the Member made comments of a discriminatory nature about the recruitment of women to the care sector, at a Council Committee meeting An investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct was suggestive of a breach of paragraphs 4(a), 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Code. Information was obtained from the Council, including relevant documents and minutes.  Several witnesses, including the complainant, were interviewed.  However, there were difficulties in obtaining evidence from everyone present at the Council training session.  The Member was interviewed as part of the investigation. In relation to the first incident, the Member said that he disagreed with the views outlined in the training session and expressed this to the course providers.  The Member explained that he stated his views, based on his personal experiences and that of his constituents.  Having considered the evidence gathered, the Ombudsman determined that the Member’s comments could be considered as political expression and therefore attracted enhanced protection.  Accordingly, the Member had the right to express his views.  The evidence gathered did not suggest that the comments were directed towards Gypsy, Roma, traveller communities on the basis of their background or ethnicity.  Therefore, the Ombudsman found that any finding of a breach of the Code would likely amount to a disproportionate interference with the Member’s right to freedom of expression.  The Ombudsman noted that she did not condone the Member’s conduct and noted that having sight of the evidence gathered, the Member will now understand the level of upset caused and he may therefore wish to follow up on his offer to

Mr K complained that the Council had not responded to a complaint raised, in February 2025, concerning repeated missed refuse/waste collections. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to deal with the complaint which caused additional frustration and uncertainty for Mr K. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to immediately escalate Mr K’s complaint to Stage 2 and to write to him with its apology and confirmation of escalation. It also agreed to issue its complaint response within 3 weeks.

Mrs A complained that the Council had refused to provide school transport for her daughter, who had additional learning needs. Mrs A’s appeal was refused at stage 1. She sought to appeal the decision at Stage 2, but was outside the Council’s timescales. The Ombudsman found that, whilst there was no evidence that the initial decision was not properly taken, the Council did not appear to have considered relevant information about the child’s additional learning needs submitted at the appeal stage. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Council agreed to provide Mrs A with a written response explaining the reasons for its decision and setting out the process for applying for school transport under its ALN procedures.

Dr X complained that Denbighshire County Council had not followed their guidance on informal parking appeals and had not responded to his appeal within 28 days. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not responded to Dr X’s informal appeal within 28 days, nor had they apologised for the delay. The Ombudsman said this had caused uncertainty and frustration for Dr X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman asked and obtained the Council’s agreement, within 2 weeks, to apologise for the delay in responding within 28 days, and to consider updating the wording on its website/acknowledgment messages to better manage expectations regarding response time periods.

Mr P complained that Denbighshire County Council failed to issue a response to his complaint which he made to it about the introduction of a new waste collection system. The Ombudsman found that the Council had responded to Mr P’s complaint in July. However, the Council’s response was not substantive, and it did not inform Mr P of how he could escalate his complaint to Stage 2 of its internal complaints process if he remained unhappy. The Ombudsman said this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr P. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr P with an apology of this oversight and to issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 2 weeks.

Mr A complained that he was discriminated against because of his health condition. He was unhappy with the Council’s Stage 1 and 2 complaint and referred to the contradictions between them. The Stage 1 response said that the fact that Mr A’s driving licence had expired was the only reason he was not registered for the Council operated work scheme. However, the Stage 2 response said that although his driving license had not expired, he had not been registered for the scheme because he had not provided the correct document. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s Stage 1 and 2 investigation fell short of what the Ombudsman would expect from a public body. Had the Stage 2 investigation taken into account what had been said at Stage 1, the contradictions and factual inaccuracies evident in the responses could have been avoided and addressed. As a result of the shortcomings, Mr A lost confidence in both the Service and the Council’s complaint handling process and this was an injustice to him. As part of further learning from this case, the Ombudsman highlighted the need for training to be provided on what was appropriate documentation for the purposes of the work scheme. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr A for the shortcomings in both its Stage 1 and Stage 2 investigations and the contradictions in its responses.

Ms C and Mr H complained that the Council had not answered a complaint they raised after making a report of antisocial behaviour. They said that communication with them was poor, responses were delayed and their request for a home visit was not addressed properly. Ms C and Mr H also said that the Council had not explained why it had decided no action could be taken, despite the Council having taken action in relation to similar antisocial behaviour 8 months earlier. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not identified or addressed the reasons for the delays in responding to Ms C and Mr H. A home visit was refused with no clear explanation and no attempt was made to clarify their concerns or provide an alternative way for them to submit hard copy evidence. The Council’s approach also seemed to focus more on what Ms C might have been doing, rather than addressing whether there was evidence of antisocial behaviour and whether it met the threshold for the Council to take action. The Council also said that the most recent report would not be considered to be antisocial behaviour, but this seemed inconsistent given that similar issues were addressed in 2021. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms C and Mr H, provide reassurance that the reasons for the communication delays had been addressed and arrange for a home visit to take place. It also agreed to write to Ms C and Mr H to confirm the outcome of that home visit, with particular reference to the hard copy evidence they have, the Council’s position on what constitutes antisocial behaviour, and what they can expect from the Council in relation to the issues they are reporting or any future incidents. It agreed to complete these actions within 6 weeks.

Revd X complained that Denbighshire County Council had failed to respond to her email following its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman concluded that Denbighshire County Council had failed to respond to Revd X despite it telling her to contact it should she require further information or clarification following the stage 2 response. She said this had caused frustration and an inconvenience to Revd X. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained Denbighshire County Council’s agreement to issues a further response to clarify what measure the Council is able to take or unable to take in respect of potential traffic calming measures.

Mr A complained that the Council had delayed taking action regarding his noise complaint and had not responded substantively to his complaint about its service. The investigation found that the Council’s handling of Mr A’s matter was still ongoing, which had delayed its response to Mr A’s complaint. It was therefore not possible to say whether the Council agreed with or rejected Mr A’s concerns. In order to progress Mr A’s complaint, the Council agreed to respond to his complaint within 4 weeks. Mr A would be able to return to the Ombudsman with his complaint in due course if he was not satisfied with the Council’s final response.

Mr A and Mr B complained that Welsh Government had failed to use its powers to ensure that Conwy County Borough Council and Denbighshire County Council were taking action to meet the need for accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers as required by the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. Mr A and Mr B also complained that Welsh Government had failed to deal properly with a complaint they had made about this matter. Local authorities have a duty to meet the need for accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. They are required to identify and assess the need in their area and submit a plan to Welsh Government for its approval. Welsh Government therefore has a critical leadership role in ensuring that local authorities carry out their duties for the provision of accommodation. The investigation found that Welsh Government had failed to carry out this role and that its failure to respond to Conwy &Denbighshire Councils had constrained the ability of Conwy and Denbighshire to meet the need for accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. This has caused frustration and distress to both Mr A and Mr B, whose accommodation needs remain unmet. It is also likely that others in the community have been affected, or could be affected, by this failure. Mr A and Mr B’s complaint was not dealt with in accordance with Welsh Government policy. Their complaint was wrongly classified as one that could not be considered under the policy. The time taken to inform them that their complaint was not being considered was excessive. I recommended that the Welsh Government should apologise to Mr A and Mr B for the failings identified in this report and offer them a payment of £1,000 each in recognition of the injustice caused to them because of these failings. I also recommended that Welsh Government should inform local authorities of the requirement to continue to take steps to meet need in approved Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments whilst updated Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments ar

The complaint related to the manner in which a decision had been taken in 2022 on free school transport eligibility in relation to pupils with disabilities and additional learning needs (ALN). A concern was also raised that the Council’s school transport policy (“the Policy”) did not properly reflect the provisions of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 (“the Measure”) and the Operational Guidance. The Ombudsman noted that the Council’s appeal decision in this case lacked clarity and wrongly used the term ‘discretionary’ in relation to its consideration of the application. The Council acknowledged this and apologised to the applicant. The Ombudsman found that the Policy did not indicate that the provision of school transport for pupils with ALN was under the discretionary, rather than the statutory, provisions. However, the wording of the Policy could be much clearer to properly reflect the transport requirements set out in the Measure for pupils with disabilities. The Council therefore agreed to: Within 1 month · Write a guidance document detailing the Council’s duties and process for considering school transport applications for disabled/ALN students, taking account of the provisions and wording of the Measure and Operational Guidance. This should be aimed at assisting applicants and should be available on its website on the same page as its School Transport Policy. · Review how to improve the explanations for its school transport decisions, so that the wording and explanations are clear to applicants as to what was considered and how the decision was reached. This should include reference to relevant policy, guidance and legislation.

Miss L complained that Denbighshire County Council had not responded to her concerns about an unlicensed and unpermitted use of a residential property adjacent to her property. She also complained about noise nuisance and the Councils failure to act on her concerns. The Ombudsman concluded that although Miss L raised several complaints with the Council, it had not escalated these under its statutory complaint’s procedure. As a result, the Council failed to respond to the concerns raised or within its complaints procedure timeframe. She said this caused frustration to Miss L. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Councils agreement to provide Miss L with an apology for the delay in responding to her concerns, to escalate her concerns under its stage 2 procedure, and issue a complaint response within 30 working days.

We investigated a complaint by Mr and Mrs S regarding whether the Council had failed to follow the appropriate procedures or had failed to give regard to the relevant planning considerations when considering the effect of their neighbours’ development on their property. The Ombudsman found that the Council gave due regard to relevant policies and procedures when considering the planning application of the neighbours of Mr and Mrs S. As such, the Ombudsman was satisfied that no administrative failings were made during the planning process. The complaint was not upheld.

Ms B complained that Denbighshire County Council had not provided her with support when she was caring for her partner and had refused to accept a complaint from her. The Ombudsman found that the Council were justified in not responding to some aspects of her complaint which related directly Ms B’s partner, but that there were components that could be considered, which related directly to her, and responded to. This situation resulted in Ms B experiencing worry, which affected her health. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and in resolution of Ms B’s complaint it agreed that, within 20 working days, the Head of Adult Services investigate and respond to the five aspects of the complaint, detailed in Ms B’s submission to the Ombudsman, that related directly to her, and provide her with a written response.

Mr X complained that the Council failed to issue a Stage Two complaint response to his complaint about its process of issuing Council allotment plots. The Ombudsman contacted the Council, and it agreed to provide a Stage Two complaint response which should address all concerns raised in the original complaint as well as concerns raised about the Council’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman considered this to be a sufficient resolution as an alternative to investigating the complaint.

Mrs A complained that Denbighshire Council (“the Council”)refused to accept her complaint because it said it had previously responded to the matters raised, and it related to issues that had already exhausted its complaint procedures. The Ombudsman found that the Council wrongly determined it had already responded to the complaint. There was no evidence that Mrs A had previously submitted her complaint, or that the Council had responded to the matters raised. He said that this caused delays and frustration for Mrs A. He decided to settle the complaint without investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to accept Mrs A’s complaint and provide a response in line with its complaint procedures.

Mr D complained about the care and treatment that his late mother, Mrs M, received at Glan Clwyd Hospital and Llandudno General Hospital. He complained that: Clinicians failed to adequately investigate and appropriately treat Mrs M’s symptoms of abdominal pain, gastro-intestinal upset and weight loss which she developed following bowel surgery. Clinicians failed to accurately assess Mrs M’s frail condition and discharged her without appropriate home care support in place. This was subsequently provided by the Council but was inadequate and, within days, Mrs M was readmitted. The decision to remove Mrs M’s nasogastric tubing led to further weight-loss and deterioration. A secondary cause of Mrs M’s death – an ischaemic bowel, was not identified from scans or investigations conducted during her admissions. The Health Board and the Council failed to coordinate their response to the complaint. The Council’s response was received 6 months after the response provided by the Health Board. The Ombudsman upheld complaint1. He found that senior physicians at both hospitals (including the Colorectal MDT) failed to identify that Mrs M had developed a post-operative blockage in the small bowel (a small bowel obstruction – SBO). He found that, despite conspicuous radiological and clinical evidence pointing to this, physicians inappropriately excluded a physical cause for Mrs M’s symptoms and attributed her weight loss and aversion to eating to a ‘food phobia’. The Ombudsman could not definitively conclude that the failure to identify and treat the SBO meant that Mrs M’s death was preventable. This was because it was unclear whether she could have sustained further surgery, given her frail condition and comorbidities. The Ombudsman nevertheless considered this to be an alarming, systemic misdiagnosis and considered the uncertainty surrounding whether an opportunity to surgically intervene was lost, to be in itself, an injustice to Mrs M and her family. The Ombudsman upheld complai